so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations.

Click to expand...

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?

Click to expand...

In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.

so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations.

Click to expand...

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?

Click to expand...

In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.

Click to expand...

I'm responding to his territorial sovereignty comment since he seems to have a problem with it by pointing out a conclusion conclusion of his position.

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?

Click to expand...

In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.

Click to expand...

I'm responding to his territorial sovereignty comment since he seems to have a problem with it by pointing out a conclusion conclusion of his position.

Click to expand...

Like anything else in life, you're going to do things on a case-by-case basis.

If there had been a billion people on the planet or if they were going to drop dead the second you moved them off planet, then you would have to handle the situation differently.

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?

Click to expand...

In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.

Click to expand...

I'm responding to his territorial sovereignty comment since he seems to have a problem with it by pointing out a conclusion conclusion of his position.

Click to expand...

you've misunderstood me. I am not saying I have a problem with sovereignty in principle. I am saying that the ENTIRE BASIS of your argument is simply that.

As BillJ put it, if a "country" were made up of one village of 600, and it was sitting on the cure for cancer but the process of getting the cure involved having to move those 600,, are you honestly saying that you'd be against it?

If yes, then as I wrote, you are not analyzing things on a case-by-case basis, you are simply elevating absolutist principle above actual good.

so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations.

Click to expand...

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?

Click to expand...

In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.

Click to expand...

Well, who decides where the borders of the US end? The US.

Yes, it would be okay with me.

Click to expand...

And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?

As BillJ put it, if a "country" were made up of one village of 600, and it was sitting on the cure for cancer but the process of getting the cure involved having to move those 600,, are you honestly saying that you'd be against it?

Click to expand...

If you had worked out an arrangement of some sort with them beforehand and didn't try to kidnap them without even letting them so much as know you exist I would be okay with it, unfortunately for some reason didn't think they might want to at lest try doing that.

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?

Click to expand...

In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.

Click to expand...

Well, who decides where the borders of the US end? The US.

Yes, it would be okay with me.

Click to expand...

And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?

As BillJ put it, if a "country" were made up of one village of 600, and it was sitting on the cure for cancer but the process of getting the cure involved having to move those 600,, are you honestly saying that you'd be against it?

Click to expand...

If you had worked out an arrangement of some sort with them beforehand and didn't try to kidnap them without even letting them so much as know you exist I would be okay with it, unfortunately for some reason didn't think they might want to at lest try doing that.

Click to expand...

that the Baku weren't asked is a criticism of the FILM, not of my argument. Of course I'd favor attempting a diplomatic resolution involving compensation rather than the convoluted kidnapping scheme that we saw, but that's just because the movie is poorly written and lacking in simple common sense. It SHOULD have been that Dougherty and the UFP thought the Baku really were primitives indigenous to the planet. Then their plan would have at least made sense as an effort to preserve the PD in spirit, if not in letter.

As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.

But aren't Artim and the other Ba'ku children natives of the planet, having been born there?

Click to expand...

That might make them Federation citizens. But it wouldn't hand the planet to their parents.

I also don't get how the Federation owns the planet when they didn't exist centuries ago from when the Ba'ku first settled there.

Click to expand...

Because that region of space has traded hands multiple time, never into the ownership of the Baku.

Consider the city of New Orleans.
It was establish in 1718 by the French Mississippi Company.
Then ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1763.
Then reverted to French in 1801.
Then sold to the United States in 1803.

As the city and the territory that held it changed hands periodically, the authority and jurisdiction changed too, for the people living there it often made little difference. But they, just like the Baku, were under the new jurisdiction each time.

But aren't Artim and the other Ba'ku children natives of the planet, having been born there?

Click to expand...

That might make them Federation citizens. But it wouldn't hand the planet to their parents.

I also don't get how the Federation owns the planet when they didn't exist centuries ago from when the Ba'ku first settled there.

Click to expand...

Because that region of space has traded hands multiple time, never into the ownership of the Baku.

Consider the city of New Orleans.
It was establish in 1718 by the French Mississippi Company.
Then ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1763.
Then reverted to French in 1801.
Then sold to the United States in 1803.

As the city and the territory that held it changed hands periodically, the authority and jurisdiction changed too, for the people living there it often made little difference. But they, just like the Baku, were under the new jurisdiction each time.

Even if no control was exercised upon them.

Click to expand...

I don't think a 2 dimensional parcel of land with an area of 350 square miles is an equal comparison to the territorial issue of the Ba'ku planet and I don't think Federation "territory" works like that.

I think the geographical boundaries of "Federation Space" and the political and jurisdictional boundaries of the "United Federation of Planets" are being conflated. The Ba'ku planet was a "Federation planet" in that it fell within the geographic region agreed upon between the powers of the quadrant (through treaties, wars, diplomacy, etc.) to be under Federation influence, with the understanding that the Federation will likely defend these parts of space, or at least lays legitimate claim -- all within the context of recognition by the galactic powers (Romulans, Klingons, Tholians, Cardassians, etc.)

The Ba'ku planet was not, however, a "Federation planet" in the legal/political sense -- it was not a member of the Federation, had no representation on the Federation council, and were not subject to Federation law. The planet, therefore, was not subject to any decisions by the Federation. If they were, the UFP would be a conquering power. A planet doesn't become beholden to Federation law or the whims of the Federation just because a bunch of diplomats drew a line on a map of outer space. Why stop at Ba'ku? I hear the Halkans have a ton of dilithium the Federation could use. I'm pretty sure they're in "Federation space."

Add to that, the Ba'ku settled this planet three years before Earth's Terra Nova colony even launched, and three years after Earth discovered warp speed. As far as the Federation is concerned, to paraphrase Chancellor Gowron, the Ba'ku's claim to that planet is ancient.

As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.

Click to expand...

Just as thrilled as any soldier who has to protect people who can't or won't defend themselves, I guess.

As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.

Click to expand...

Just as thrilled as any soldier who has to protect people who can't or won't defend themselves, I guess.

Click to expand...

not quite. Usually soldiers defend members of their own political unit, be it a tribe, state, or nation. But that doesn't apply here, because your argument is that the Baku are neutral, and most definitely NOT part of the UFP.

Also, the soldier in this situation is aware that he is defending a group that are hoarding a resource that could cure all of the various folks back home who have various diseases or ailments, but that they have no interest in helping anyone but themselves.

As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.

Click to expand...

Defend them from what the Son'a and the Baku want to try to getting along again at the end of the film.

As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.

Click to expand...

Defend them from what the Son'a and the Baku want to try to getting along again at the end of the film.

Click to expand...

right, because there aren't any other powers out there in the Alpha Quadrant that will have an interest in the particles in the Briar Patch. Once word gets out, the UFP would be defending the Baku against the Romulans, the Ferengi, the Cardassians, ... etc. You think if a "fountain of youth" were discovered on Earth there wouldn't be some competition for it?

That is, if we take the movie's premise seriously, but then it's so poorly thought out I'm not sure we're meant to.

The Ba'ku planet ... it was not a member of the Federation, had no representation on the Federation council, and were not subject to Federation law.

Click to expand...

Planets don't have representation, people do.

The planet, therefore, was not subject to any decisions by the Federation.

Click to expand...

The planet as an physical object would be subject to Council decisions, the Baku population themselves are another story. If the rings could have been harvested with no impact upon the planet's environment, likely the Baku could have been simply left where they were. The whole purpose behind moving the Baku was to prevent them from being harmed by the harvesting of the rings.

Add to that, the Ba'ku settled this planet three years before Earth's Terra Nova colony even launched, and three years after Earth discovered warp speed.

Click to expand...

But thousands of years after some future Federation members established colonies and discovered warp speed (Vulcans). Terra Nova is a possible parallel to the ring planet, when the small number of Human colonist first landed, did that automatically mean the entire planet belonged to them? Simply because "they were there first." Planets are big places.

They might be able to claim their immediate landing site and a reasonable area around it, but the whole planet?

I don't think a 2 dimensional parcel of land with an area of 350 square miles ...

Click to expand...

The Louisiana purchase was 828,000 square miles, New Orleans was included in the purchase.

How would they know if you make a settlement on the other side of the planet?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the Ba'ku actively letting people (not that they could actually stop people from coming) settle on the planet. People requesting from the Ba'ku to be able to live there with their knowledge, but wanting to let the Ba'ku still do their thing and just settling on another side of the planet or something. They should have listened to Spock. Apparently, the needs of the many did not outweigh the needs of the few...or the one.

Click to expand...

Ummm... That's my point. But then just don't tell anyone there are other settlements.

How would they know if you make a settlement on the other side of the planet?

Click to expand...

But isn't relocating to the ring planet the same as today having to move next to the factory that makes your medicine?

If you need insulin, it gets shipped to you (or your pharmacy), you don't have live where it's made.

******

Picard was attracted to the Baku life style, would a modern 24th century community have been as desirable to him, even if on the same planet?

Click to expand...

I've always thought it made no sense for Picard to admire the Baku lifestyle the way he did. Picard was never shown as some back to nature traditionalist. If anything, that was his brother's philosophy more than his. TV series Picard might have been "to each their own," but wouldn't have been charmed by it the way movie Picard seemed to be.